Originally posted by FastJetPilot
Hey I dont want to start an arguament, but....No seriously like to hear the opinions.
Great, me too
Unfortunately you have now awoken me to my favourite subject, hope I don't get carried away 
Is the threat of grounding really a reason that the MOD Procurement would source 2 jets, I personally dont believe that arguament at all, we put all our eggs in one attack helicoper, one main battle tank, one of each class of everything, we dont build multi billion pound decisions on redundancy (except in the case of obsolete redundancy).
Sure. I'm not saying it actually is a consideration during procurement nowadays, only that it should be. In the past, when things were a lot cheaper, it was an active consideration and disparate types were often ordered at the same time, which is obviously something we aren't going to be doing anymore. Its why, for instance, we got the SE5a and Sopwith Camel, Bristol Bulldog and Hawker Fury, Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire, Gloster Meteor and DH Vampire and we tried to procure both the Hawker Hunter and Supermarine Swift (which was pants) and the EE Lightning and SARO SR.177 (which was too expensive, and might have also been pants for all we know).
It also explains why we used to think we could buy three different heavy bombers with the wartime Stirling, Lancaster and Halifax being followed by the Victor Valiant and Vulcan, which was a mad idea.
While this type of procurement is dead and gone, never to return, I do think and hope that we need to maintain some redundancy in the front line of our air force through stepped acquisitions such as Typhoon now, Lighnting II between 2020-30, then something else to replace Typhoon, and so on .
Back in1980 there were the Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, Phantom, Vulcan and Buccaneer all operating in our frontline squadrons.
Of these the Phantom, Vulcan and Buccaneer were replaced by the Tornado in a spell of sensible rationalisation. Since then we have also removed Harrier and Jaguar from service without any replacement (ironically, requirement AST403, that led to the Typhoon was specifically drawn up to produce a Jaguar/Harrier replacement, ho hum
) so we now have a two-type front line. To me this is a minimum we must not exceed. Look at the recent
problem the F-22 had which kept it on the ground for weeks. I think the JSF decision came about because of technology sharing, from what I can tell, BAE built Replica to prove it could make stealth on its own thus allowing access to production stealth technologies from the yanks for workshare in JSF.
There were other reasons as well, but BAE were also partners in JSF a long time before Replica was even thought of, right back when the BAE ASTOVL was killed and JCA was rewritten around the JSF instead. I think it certainly validated their participation though.
My comments on not needing JSF is driven by the fact i dont think we need stealth and its a massive red herring. We are not building a Eastern Bloc deterrent, we need to defend our shores but noone is going to invade us, if we need to project power over our allies and commonwealth and interests (falklands) we dont need stealth.
I don't disagree. I am only relieved that we have unshackled ourselves from the STOVL variant and opted instead for a more capable option, something I called for in a post on here a long time before it actually happened (smug mode
) Though we have also become the first Western nation to acquire
VSTOL capability and then abandon it, which feels kind of strange. All we need is a multi role adaptable platform and being as though we have already developed one, why bother with another?
We wont drop JSF and it will be a great aircraft, I just think we dont need it.
I'd rather we'd have also invested in a more tailored Gripen model while BAE still had a stake in it. We would then have had something to show for the development work that was done on the BAe P106, which was remarkably close to Gripen is spec and design AND we would have a tiered option both n our own front line and on the export market, win win.
But wishful thinking is easy
edit on 20-11-2011 by waynos because: spelin
